Topic: MQA support to be implemented in JRiver (Read 25912 times)

R1200CL · « **on:** December 09, 2015, 03:12:08 am »

MQA is a codec. Pure SW. It has a license fee. Will JRiver support and implement MQA ? If not why ? Is there any technical issues that prohibit such an implementation ?

JimH · « **Reply #1 on:** December 09, 2015, 06:49:50 am »

Isn't that the Meridian format that they claim is lossless quality but compressed?

Probably not.

blgentry · « **Reply #2 on:** December 09, 2015, 08:25:53 am »

Wow, what a weird, weird, weird format. It looks like it's lossless up to 16 bit 48kHz, then is lossy above that. Some sort of dual level encoding.

http://www.metal-fi.com/meridian-audios-mqa/
http://www.stereophile.com/content/ive-heard-future-streaming-meridians-mqa

I don't claim any expertise on this. Just a few minutes of research.

Brian.

SteveGoff · « **Reply #3 on:** December 13, 2015, 01:16:53 am »

Quote from: JimH on December 09, 2015, 06:49:50 am

Isn't that the Meridian format that they claim is lossless quality but compressed?

Probably not.

The encapsulation (folding in and packing) of higher frequencies uses lossless encoding beneath the noise floor of the audio signal, using subtractive dither. The encoder is said to correct for the temporal effect of the original recording A/D converter, taking into account the temporal sensitivity of the ear/brain. Not sure how that can be done effectively with multitrack recordings using various A/D devices.

mark_h · « **Reply #4 on:** December 13, 2015, 02:46:43 am »

Doesn't MQA have to be supported in the DAC? There's nothing for MC to do but pass over the audio file...

MQA is actually very exciting, a potential game changer in audio sound quality.

Arindelle · « **Reply #5 on:** December 13, 2015, 04:22:53 am »

I've been following this for awhile .. might be interesting for small portable devices, reducing streaming bandwidth et al (if you didn't need special DACs or software after receiving it)... but for local playback when 8tb hard drives are available for $260?

Smells of a DRM work around and blueray licensing fees

There are a lot of articles on this, this is just an editorial of course but I found it interesting and easy for the non-engineer to follow http://www.metal-fi.com/meridian-audios-mqa/

Watch the Median video and follow the money -- Warner Music loves it

pschelbert · « **Reply #6 on:** December 14, 2015, 01:26:39 pm »

no, MQA is a nonsense format so no reason to support it.

Proprietory, costs license and is worse sound than the simple and high quality flac, where we get almost any quality and bitdepth we want.

It's not even needed for streaming, there are companies which stream flac.

Okay Warner and so on like it because its good to make money on it.

So the ones who like it may purchase a very costly Meridian player. That one supports it.

SteveGoff · « **Reply #7 on:** December 15, 2015, 10:45:34 pm »

As a streaming technology MQA is kind of interesting, but it's proprietary nature and the licensing scheme disqualify it for me. And I doubt Meridian is the only company that can make temporally transparent A to D/D to A conversion hardware, even accepting their criteria.

mark_h · « **Reply #8 on:** December 16, 2015, 02:05:43 am »

Quote from: pschelbert on December 14, 2015, 01:26:39 pm

worse sound than the simple and high quality flac, where we get almost any quality and bitdepth we want.

Which suggests you don't understand MQA...

Hendrik · « **Reply #9 on:** December 16, 2015, 02:10:55 am »

Quote from: mark_h on December 16, 2015, 02:05:43 am

Which suggests you don't understand MQA...

Its just a new way to compress high-samplerate PCM, its not going to "improve" the quality of the audio compared to high quality lossless encodes that we have today.
The only chance it potentially has is if it can compress to smaller sizes and deliver better quality as other compressions, but thats all.

Note that the company uses the term "MQA" for a variety of technologies, including their audio mastering tools, which they tout as improving quality.
But the MQA audio format itself is no magic. Its just a way to encode extra frequency information ontop of a 48kHz encode - which is no better than just encoding a FLAC at 192kHz to start with from a quality side.

Sounds somewhat like AAC's Spectral Band Replication (SBR), or DTS X96, which are encoding tools to "boost" the sample rate without encoding their data completely (which would take much more bitrate).

In any case, to the original topic - due to licensing requirements, it seems unlikely that it would be supported anytime soon.

R1200CL · « **Reply #10 on:** December 16, 2015, 04:26:44 am »

Well, the main question was if JRiver will support it. (For those using Tidal streaming).
One main reason for this request is to avoid purchase a new DAC, in order to get the benefit of MQA.

Well maybe Tidal will implement the MQA in their desktop application, then probably no need for JRiver to do...

For those who purchase hi-res through HD-Tracks and similar, I can't see the need of MQA.

pschelbert · « **Reply #11 on:** December 16, 2015, 10:59:17 am »

I just looked at Tidal. Best they promise is 44kHz/16bit flac they say. Thats not HiRes just ordinary CD quality. Streaming as flac is only about 700-900kbps. If they use MQA it has no justification on quality.

SteveGoff · « **Reply #12 on:** January 07, 2016, 12:43:14 am »

No, as noted, Tidal will offer MQA in their streaming service.

RD James · « **Reply #13 on:** January 07, 2016, 11:17:44 am »

Tidal will surely decode MQA to PCM.
JRiver would not have to support MQA.

SteveGoff · « **Reply #14 on:** January 10, 2016, 05:38:47 pm »

Quote from: RD James on January 07, 2016, 11:17:44 am

Tidal will surely decode MQA to PCM.
JRiver would not have to support MQA.

it would be nice to think so, though I haven't seen anything that supports this notion.

crenca · « **Reply #15 on:** January 10, 2016, 06:42:17 pm »

There are more questions than answers right now around MQA, as demonstrated by the many contradictory statements about MQA on this very thread. I believe it is a way to get "authentication" (DRM is such a dirty word) in the door of otherwise unsuspecting end users with the promise (of probably very real) SQ improvements and "lossless" compression for streaming companies (such as Tidal) and end users.

Just today, they have apparently made the (rash?) decision to require an MQA authenticated DAC at the end use point.

You can read all about it over at Computer Audiophile if you wish...

Awesome Donkey · « **Reply #16 on:** January 10, 2016, 07:58:35 pm »

Meh, more reason to avoid MQA, IMO. Not a fan of proprietary formats like this.

mark_h · « **Reply #17 on:** January 11, 2016, 03:03:01 am »

Perhaps you could all watch this, and then come back with a more informed position...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5o6XHVK2HA

AndrewFG · « **Reply #18 on:** January 11, 2016, 06:09:12 am »

Hmmm..

I am sure that the technology is really cute.

Problem is that the industry has been fighting against proprietary technologies for years. And all the big beasts have been forced to go open source (e.g. Fraunhofer was forced to open source MP3 , Apple was forced to open source ALAC, FLAC was opened, WAV & AIF are de facto open source. So if Meridien really thinks they can push MQA through as a proprietary paid for technology, they have another think coming..

Without open source, it just ain't gonna happen..

Hendrik · « **Reply #19 on:** January 11, 2016, 06:32:20 am »

Like I mentioned in a post above, they are marketing not only MQA the audio format, but they are also marketing their mastering process under the same name (what that video calls "Transparent Channel" and "Quality Assurance")
Those mastering improvements could be gained with any ordinary audio format - but of course you wouldn't make as much money then.

crenca · « **Reply #20 on:** January 11, 2016, 10:19:36 am »

Quote from: mark_h on January 11, 2016, 03:03:01 am

Perhaps you could all watch this, and then come back with a more informed position...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5o6XHVK2HA

That is a very good video, and I tend to point folks to it who want more (which is not everybody) than a 2 sentence explanation of what MQA is. MQA is a multi-faceted beast, and would be quite benign and beneficial if it was not for the "authentication" part.

Based on Meridians handling of MQA at CES, where they have changed their minds and decided it is not ready and thus thrown their "partners" under the bus, I don't believe Meridian has the chops as a company to make MQA a serious market success no matter what MQA's merits/potential. However, I would not be surprised if a real company (like Apple or Sony) buys the technology up, and leads us all into an "authenticated" future...

crenca · « **Reply #21 on:** January 11, 2016, 10:27:29 am »

Quote from: AndrewFG on January 11, 2016, 06:09:12 am

Problem is that the industry has been fighting against proprietary technologies for years...Without open source, it just ain't gonna happen..

I wished I shared your optimism, but I am disheartened by the number of "computer audiophiles" over at CA who seem fully prepared to sell their "open format souls" for what amounts to a sound quality tweak. Also, the strategy appears to be to get it into smartphones and streaming (Tidal has been onboard so far) and sort of "backdoor" it for the 99% who walk into a Verizon store and might ask "what is MQA?" and the employee (who himself has no idea) will say "you want it for streaming" and then you will have the market penetration you need for MQA 2.0, which of course will require "authentication"...

Castius · « **Reply #22 on:** February 02, 2016, 12:03:43 pm »

http://www.avsforum.com/mqa-audio-at-ces-2016/

I don't want to bring attention to something i would prefer to fade away.
But these guys are pushing really hard and I wish there was a better way to inform the uninformed.

I prefer open formats. As many others do. How else do we influence the market to keep that going?

Awesome Donkey · « **Reply #23 on:** February 02, 2016, 12:49:52 pm »

Quote from: Castius on February 02, 2016, 12:03:43 pm

As many others do. How else do we influence the market to keep that going?

By not buying into stuff like this in the first place.

RD James · « **Reply #24 on:** February 02, 2016, 02:24:06 pm »

Quote from: Awesome Donkey on February 02, 2016, 12:49:52 pm

By not buying into stuff like this in the first place.

Not just not buying into it, actively avoiding products which support it - and contacting the companies to let them know this.

guzdam · « **Reply #25 on:** February 17, 2017, 04:24:37 pm »

this may change the game in favor of MQA

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/mqa-and-universal-music-group-collaborate-on-advancing-hi-res-on-demand-streaming/

"Universal Music Group announced that it would offer its catalog as MQA-encoded streaming files. Universal controls the largest, richest, and most diverse music archive in the world, including the catalogs of Capitol Records, Decca, EMI, A&M, Verve, Geffen, Motown (to name a few), in addition to the vast catalog of music and artists under the Universal name. With Universal joining Warner Music Group in offering its catalog in MQA, MQA appears to have reached critical mass."

JimH · « **Reply #26 on:** February 17, 2017, 05:35:34 pm »

Good luck with that.

mojave · « **Reply #27 on:** March 17, 2017, 10:14:33 am »

I enjoyed reading these articles about MQA:

My Questions and Answers (MQA): An Interview with Andreas Koch

Hypothesis Paper to support a deeper Technical Analysis of MQA (Master Quality Authenticated) by MQA Limited

Audioseduction · « **Reply #28 on:** March 19, 2017, 03:13:42 pm »

So MQA support will never be implemented in JRiver? Yes or no

JimH · « **Reply #29 on:** March 19, 2017, 03:28:06 pm »

Never is a long time, but I'm extremely skeptical of the value of it.

Our focus is on bringing real value to our customers.

Hendrik · « **Reply #30 on:** March 19, 2017, 04:18:19 pm »

Quote from: Audioseduction on March 19, 2017, 03:13:42 pm

So MQA support will never be implemented in JRiver? Yes or no

There is not a single software implementation of MQA to this date. Its all in hardware - in special MQA aware DACs. Even the software claiming "MQA Core" support still need a MQA DAC for full playback.
So even if we wanted to, MQA does not seem to want a complete software solution.

You can play MQA FLAC files in MC today if you make sure to send them bit-exact to a MQA aware DAC (no processing, no volume changes).

On another note, i really liked the links mojave linked above, anyone interested in MQA should read up on the format and what it really is, not what marketing claims it is.

BillT · « **Reply #31 on:** March 20, 2017, 04:32:03 am »

And another article on MQA by a very competent amateur (retired) which attempts to explain it in a fairly approachable way.

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/origami/ThereAndBack.html

Awesome Donkey · « **Reply #32 on:** March 20, 2017, 04:58:33 am »

Press release:

http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/highresaudio-to-stop-offering-mqa/

toomanybarts · « **Reply #33 on:** April 03, 2017, 03:02:46 pm »

Quote from: Hendrik on March 19, 2017, 04:18:19 pm

There is not a single software implementation of MQA to this date. Its all in hardware - in special MQA aware DACs. Even the software claiming "MQA Core" support still need a MQA DAC for full playback.
So even if we wanted to, MQA does not seem to want a complete software solution.

Isn't Tidal desktop doing this in s/w now?

Trumpetguy · « **Reply #34 on:** April 04, 2017, 11:54:09 am »

No, and yes. They decode so you can play using any hardware, but you still need a MQA dac to fully use the protocol.

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: MQA support to be implemented in JRiver (Read 25912 times)